4 ms·

We are all watching user-generated content destroy the very concept of truth, and Wikipedia is example A1. There is no solution. Perhaps truth was always an il

We are all watching user-generated content destroy the very concept of truth, and Wikipedia is example A1. There is no solution. Perhaps truth was always an illusion, but the illusion has been destroyed and it is unravelling society. A consensus of reputation used to govern these things, but now reputation means almost nothing and there are no mechanisms for consensus on the web. Attempts at consensus are all based in censorship and what remains of reputation is a perverted proxy for "ability to get attention".

kube-system 4y ago
"Consensus of experts" and "consensus of internet users" can also be two entirely different things.
wpietri 4y ago
I don't see any particular reason to think that Wikipedia is worse than what existed prior. What exemplar from, say, 1980, do you think was better in terms of information quality? I'm thinking back to going in to a library, where a given topic would generally have 0-3 books. Books often put together by a single person, a person often chosen because of personal relationships with a publisher, plus that publisher's intent to turn a profit. Or opening up a daily newspaper, where I might get a few paragraphs on a topic, written by one person and edited by a couple more, all paid for by an ad-supported company run by people who often had local political connections. There may be no mechanism for consensus on the web, but Wikipedia certainly has one, one that has worked reasonably well for 20 years at this point.
- nkingsy 4y ago
  It worked for a time and now it is dying at the hands of bad-faith actors who have worked within their mechanism.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That's an interesting claim. Where's your evidence? I'll also note you must have missed my question, as I don't think you have answered it.
    - nkingsy 4y ago
      disclaimer: Yes the grayzone hires RT reporters and has a strongly anti-us take on pretty much everything. Please don't spout "russian propagandist" takes. They've been heard plenty. This is the lack of truth I'm talking about. These are investigative journalists--a dying breed that western propagandists are attempting to make extinct. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censor...
      - wpietri 4y ago
        That's not evidence, that's a series of disconnected vague complaints from a publisher who is salty that they're not considered a reliable source. They complain about conflicts of interest, but I didn't see them even acknowledging their own. I also couldn't find any financial transparency, so it's not clear to me who is funding this or their other writing. And I'll point out for the last time that you still haven't answered my initial question. If you're just going to keep dodging, I think I'm done here.
        nkingsy 4y ago
        I thought the article answered your question pretty well and they clearly state on their about page that they are not backed by any government and rely on donations. The entire internet points to wikipedia and its consensus mechanism is inherently vulnerable to editors for hire, as clearly demonstrated with scores of links. So my answer is "pick any publication from 1980 and it is better because its bias can be audited and it is not polluting every search query I make"
        wpietri 4y ago
throw10920 4y ago
> There is no solution. How an an explicit web of trust not a solution? Imagine a system where you can keep a local database of people/sites/pages you know and how much you trust them, selectively expose parts of that database to your immediate friends and/or the web as a whole, and lookup/query the databases exposed by contacts. "My friend F1 assigns a trust score of 0.9 to website W1, and I assign a trust score of 0.9 to F1, so I trust this site 0.81 and I'm willing to make financial transactions on it without further research (but not give it my SSN)." "My friend F2 trusts random R1 0.7, who trusts random R2 0.5, who trusts random R3 0.4, who is pushing this new cryptocurrency - maybe I should talk with F2 about R1 and R2 before doing anything with this..." "My friend F3 distrusts site W2 with a score of -0.7, I'm not going to shop there." "My friend F4 is a history expert and distrusts this Wikipedia page on history with a score of -0.5, so it's probably not reliable." What would be wrong with this system?
- kube-system 4y ago
  You're described a system that tells you what your friends think, not a system that necessarily comes to any objective truth. The internet is already full of echo chambers of misplaced trust -- that's much of the problem. Linking echo chambers to mutually trusted echo chambers isn't going to lead people to objective truth. It's going to introduce flat-earthers to ghost hunters.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ohwellhere 4y ago
  You're solving for trust rather than "truth". Of course, there may be no truth, hence GP's: > > Perhaps truth was always an illusion But my interpretation of what they meant by "very concept of truth" is something like "consensus reality;" where the vast majority of people trust something is true. A network of trust is fragmented bubbles of distinct truths. > What would be wrong with this system? For starters, I don't know that it's a priori better than the current fragmented bubbles of distinct truths we have. Are more fragmented bubbles better? For some populations or people, maybe; for society? It's less clear. But I think the real thing wrong with web of trust systems is that the value is tied up in network effects and you have to solve for adoption. --- I say that as someone who generally thinks this is a useful way of approaching the problem of trust. I've brainstormed building this too many times to count. :)

kube-system 4y ago

"Consensus of experts" and "consensus of internet users" can also be two entirely different things.

wpietri 4y ago

I don't see any particular reason to think that Wikipedia is worse than what existed prior. What exemplar from, say, 1980, do you think was better in terms of information quality? I'm thinking back to going in to a library, where a given topic would generally have 0-3 books. Books often put together by a single person, a person often chosen because of personal relationships with a publisher, plus that publisher's intent to turn a profit. Or opening up a daily newspaper, where I might get a few paragraphs on a topic, written by one person and edited by a couple more, all paid for by an ad-supported company run by people who often had local political connections. There may be no mechanism for consensus on the web, but Wikipedia certainly has one, one that has worked reasonably well for 20 years at this point.

nkingsy 4y ago
It worked for a time and now it is dying at the hands of bad-faith actors who have worked within their mechanism.
- wpietri 4y ago
  That's an interesting claim. Where's your evidence? I'll also note you must have missed my question, as I don't think you have answered it.
  - nkingsy 4y ago
    disclaimer: Yes the grayzone hires RT reporters and has a strongly anti-us take on pretty much everything. Please don't spout "russian propagandist" takes. They've been heard plenty. This is the lack of truth I'm talking about. These are investigative journalists--a dying breed that western propagandists are attempting to make extinct. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censor...
    - wpietri 4y ago
      That's not evidence, that's a series of disconnected vague complaints from a publisher who is salty that they're not considered a reliable source. They complain about conflicts of interest, but I didn't see them even acknowledging their own. I also couldn't find any financial transparency, so it's not clear to me who is funding this or their other writing. And I'll point out for the last time that you still haven't answered my initial question. If you're just going to keep dodging, I think I'm done here.
      - nkingsy 4y ago
        I thought the article answered your question pretty well and they clearly state on their about page that they are not backed by any government and rely on donations. The entire internet points to wikipedia and its consensus mechanism is inherently vulnerable to editors for hire, as clearly demonstrated with scores of links. So my answer is "pick any publication from 1980 and it is better because its bias can be audited and it is not polluting every search query I make"
        wpietri 4y ago

throw10920 4y ago

> There is no solution. How an an explicit web of trust not a solution? Imagine a system where you can keep a local database of people/sites/pages you know and how much you trust them, selectively expose parts of that database to your immediate friends and/or the web as a whole, and lookup/query the databases exposed by contacts. "My friend F1 assigns a trust score of 0.9 to website W1, and I assign a trust score of 0.9 to F1, so I trust this site 0.81 and I'm willing to make financial transactions on it without further research (but not give it my SSN)." "My friend F2 trusts random R1 0.7, who trusts random R2 0.5, who trusts random R3 0.4, who is pushing this new cryptocurrency - maybe I should talk with F2 about R1 and R2 before doing anything with this..." "My friend F3 distrusts site W2 with a score of -0.7, I'm not going to shop there." "My friend F4 is a history expert and distrusts this Wikipedia page on history with a score of -0.5, so it's probably not reliable." What would be wrong with this system?

kube-system 4y ago
You're described a system that tells you what your friends think, not a system that necessarily comes to any objective truth. The internet is already full of echo chambers of misplaced trust -- that's much of the problem. Linking echo chambers to mutually trusted echo chambers isn't going to lead people to objective truth. It's going to introduce flat-earthers to ghost hunters.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ohwellhere 4y ago
You're solving for trust rather than "truth". Of course, there may be no truth, hence GP's: > > Perhaps truth was always an illusion But my interpretation of what they meant by "very concept of truth" is something like "consensus reality;" where the vast majority of people trust something is true. A network of trust is fragmented bubbles of distinct truths. > What would be wrong with this system? For starters, I don't know that it's a priori better than the current fragmented bubbles of distinct truths we have. Are more fragmented bubbles better? For some populations or people, maybe; for society? It's less clear. But I think the real thing wrong with web of trust systems is that the value is tied up in network effects and you have to solve for adoption. --- I say that as someone who generally thinks this is a useful way of approaching the problem of trust. I've brainstormed building this too many times to count. :)